Final Arguments in the Akbar-Ramani Defamation Case in January

Final arguments in the MJ Akbar-Priya Ramani defamation hearing to begin in January 2020.

MJ Akbar-Priya Ramani defamation hearing. 

(Photo: The Quint) 

The MJ Akbar-Priya Ramani defamation case, that has been going on for almost a year now, will see final arguments from both the parties early next year, with the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of all witnesses now complete.

The final arguments will span three dates: 16, 24 and 25 January.

Senior journalist Priya Ramani is fighting a criminal defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja in the Rouse Avenue trial court.

MJ Akbar was accused by several women of sexual harassment, assault, and even rape (by one woman), in the wake of the #MeToo movement in October 2018.

He, in turn, filed a defamation case against Priya Ramani, who had revealed in a tweet at the time that the beginning of an article she’d written the previous year was her #MeToo story about Akbar.

Ghazala Wahab, who is Priya Ramani’s third defence witness, testified in court on 10 December and was cross-examined by Akbar’s lawyer Geeta Luthra on 11 December.

Akbar’s lawyer: Are you aware of the provision for sexual harassment in IPC?

Wahab: I’m not aware.

Akbar’s lawyer then put multiple suggestions to Wahab stating that the assertions made in her statement were false, that she was aware of the provision for sexual harassment and that no such incident ever happened to her, with Wahab denying all these suggestions.

‘No Personal Information Must be Reported’

After the hearing got over, Akbar’s lawyer asked the court to take cognisance of an ‘important’ matter. She said that there were media reports that put out ‘personal information’ about her and her daughter. She was specifically talking about an article in The Wire that talked about the lack of empathy in Akbar’s lawyers and pointed out how they kept giggling and laughing while Wahab gave her testimony.

The Judge requested the media to refrain from making ‘personal remarks’ about the lawyers appearing in the case. A reporter asked the judge as to what qualifies as ‘personal remarks’ so she can be informed for the next hearing. She also asked if laughing during an ongoing deposition doesn’t qualify as violating court’s decorum. The court didn’t give a reply to that query. 

Everyone moved out, except the counsels. Minutes later, the court recorded in writing that no particular reporter is being pointed out, but the media should refrain from mentioning personal remarks about the counsels.

The court will now convene next year for the final arguments.